Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
To be more to the point, you want more muscle because it burns calories even when you're at rest.
Before I get into this, I want to say that I think this is healthy discussion and I agree with much of what you're saying...but these things I
disagree on are common misunderstandings that plague health and nutrition.
While it's true that building muscle will increase calories expended (mainly fat from the fat cells), it's a gross over estimation to assume that
adding a couple of pounds of muscle will cause a drastic increase. What's more likely, and is more biochemically sound, is the idea that increasing
muscle tissue decreases insulin resistance which, in turn, allows for more TO be burned by the muscles.
Simply cutting calories isn't healthy because it lowers your metabolism. Exercise counters this process.
Sometimes. If, for instance, you're exercising correctly, causing excessive post-workout oxygen consumption (EPOC). But generally, exercise
increases metabolism during the physical exertion (obviously) but then the body counters to a lack of calories, or negative energy balance, by
conserving energy. Metabolism slows, laziness and fatigue and a lack of will to do anything ensue until A)you eat more or B)you rest more.
Of course once you get to the weight range you want then you don't have to worry about calories as much just for maintenance but don't kid
yourself into believing that you can be healthy and not monitor your calories.
I'm not kidding myself. How many animals do you know that monitor their calories? Wild animals in their natural habitat are rarely overweight
(except those that hibernate) and yet they don't count calories. And many of them have an abundant food source. If you're eating healthily, it's
almost impossible to overeat...unless, of course, you're purposefully gorging yourself. When I consult someone, I never have them monitor calories
(except certain cases where overeating or undereating is needed to produce muscle or cut fat on an a person already in good shape). I simply give
them the proper foods to eat and tell them to eat when their hungry until they're full.
Don't kid YOURself into believing the body doesn't already have a calorie monitoring system in place and, when running properly, it does all the
Meals matter as much or more than the exercise part, but proper exercise does reduce the need to watch your meals as much.
I agree. But typically for people who are already in pretty good shape. For someone who is obese, this wouldn't be the case. I've played
basketball with guys who would play 4-5 days a week, 1-3 hours at a time (intermittently, of course) and still carry that extra 20-30 pounds around.
We see the same thing in obesity research. Researchers and experts will readily admit that calorie counting, caloric restriction and especially
exercise simply aren't effective fat loss tools in the long term, but still cling to the idea that calories in/calories out is the answer
because..well, IT'S PHYSICS!
Nobody is arguing the idea that in order to have weightloss you must have a negative caloric balance. DUH! That's kind of redundant. Just like
it's quite obvious that weightgain is the product of a positive caloric balance. Obesity experts actually repeat the these tautological ideologies
when explaining why people get fat and how they can lose weight. It would be like someone telling an alcoholic that he's an alcoholic because he
drinks so much!
It doesn't address the why and the how. Ignoring those questions and misapplying thermodynamics to a self-regulating system of hormones and
biochemical reactions is how we end up the the flawed idea that simply eating less or exercising more is the cure for obesity.